on those walls

A recent blurb about Keith Haring got me thinking about the functions of public/street art vs. "art art." Is street art meant to be preserved? Or does part of its beauty lie in the fact that is it so reliant on its environment–both a product and a victim of this public space. Buildings decay, taggers tag, posters come up and go down, or get covered by more posters...
I'm looking forward to hunting this down this summer–WACK! A Keith Haring classic.Keith Haring made both a street/public art and "regular" arty art, but always tried to make his art accessible to the masses, not simply the bourgeoisie. This is important...What defines street art vs. graffiti? Is there a clear distinction, besides terms of legality? The lines between "street art/graffiti" and high art have also become blurred, and street art styles are stripped from their original environment. Brad Pitt at a Banksy opening? Suburban kids tagging posters in their garages? Can street art/graffiti art still be relevant when it is entirely lacking in its original environment–that of a public space? 

The beauty of public art, especially graffiti, is it's dependance on its environment–its immediacy, spontaneity, and consequent ephemerality. It gains more meaning throughout time, through its decay and potential defacement by others. Check out super old school Fab 5 Freddy...rediscovered! Also, read more about this topic. The battles between street artists wage on, the criticism from high artists continues. This continuous dialogue is important...
One thing, however, remains clear: The facade of 40 Bond Street, a new luxury townhouse building in Manhattan is derive from graffiti forms. The building, designed by Swiss architects Herzog & de Meuron is beautiful, but it is also incredibly disjointed. I'm guessing the residents of the luxury condominiums would be rather displeased if actual street artists put up tags and posters all over the front of their bright shiny new building. 40 Bond baffles me.